need to construct the prapters to include that staff. we will need some language. >> second. second. i'm imean i don't know how the city attorney how rickive we can make the grandfathering pro vision to point to a very restrictive number of or in this case, one property, uor whether it has to be more universal and you know, however we need to craft it, i think we need some help. >> deputy city attorney, i think that i'm not familiar enough with the details of this project to assist in crafting specific language that will only capture that project right now but i'm the commission has made it's intent clear that this is the only project that you are interested in grandfathering and so your office can work with staph to do that as soon as your

direction to us is clear even if we don't have that specific language right now. right so if that is the case, then we will include that property alone. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm trying to get more information on the 601 project and i guess we don't have it here but i know, i do not need to get excited because it's an academy of art and so i don't know what it is or why they have applied for a c eu because what would happen if we approved this? there is some may be we asked them to apply for a c u. >> i don't remember if which asked them to apply for the c u. for all of the proposed --. >> yeah, this is their architecture program this is my understanding and it's in a building in a relatively new building. i don't remember it's only a few years old. my only --. >> so what happened to that c

u at this point? it would become invalid you could not approve a probability there. if you passed this pro vision that says that educational institutions are no longer permitted in the sally, you could not legalize these and they could not be in there. >> and so the building code required a chem use for the subject use and they install the subject use without permanents and the legalized to permit the use. >> you could not approve it even if you wanted to? without it yeah,. >> so i'll fill you that because i think what commissioner hillis is asking is we have a user who we have asked to comply and here's an at some point for us not to vote that in

and take a step backwards from what we asked them to do and now regardless of time line i do not want to start that conversation but i think that is what we are getting at. yeah it's not moving backwards it's moving forward. >> commissioner, i'm talking and i was not here for the discussion and is soiled like to get the whole picture, you may understand the whole picture, but i do not and we are talking about small pieces now that we have facts on and we have a asked them to apply, commission irmoore? >> the only request that i would make is in the entire discussion, this commission would have supported on the 3b option with out the specific acknowledgement of the residential project unless the architect would have come forward in detail and that there

was a missing piece which we didn't know and the brennan street project has never made any attempt then or now to be part of the discussion and so i believe that what is suggested among all of us is despite some concerns about potential future complicate of land use between the designation on the 11th street corridor that we support this prompt with specific conditions and that is that the architect has indeed designed the project which takes into consideration the full poasht of the land use and in this project. we are making a blank land use exception to the plan in front of us without knowing any detail. specifically about the project or other details but that is not a discussion that we are having at the moment and it's basically the last of paramedics in the process and

that is where my position would be to not support the motion as it is in front of us and not single out this project just because it has at some point in the past talked about a c um, which at this point is an abstract balloon. >> yeah it's a c u that we are having overall discussions with and working on short circuiting that process by saying you no longer can apply for a c u. if i may add this property was listed in the master plan which the planning commission did accept last year and so if they can no longer be grandfathered and come in then the director is correct these would into thing legalized and we would have to pursue enforce. . ment and they would have to leave and so if they do not air

prove the grand fathering and so then the plarchg commission could approve and or deny the application when it comes before you and so that would be allowing the gram fatherrings and allowing a hearing on the merits of the application. commissioner borden yeah, the only thing that i was saying it's contempted in this plan for quite some time and this is prohibited and you would think that a application use on file would make sure that it's zoning differently to make sure that the use could happen but it's part of a larger plan hat rules do not apply and some of us

commissioners are sling without doing the correct work and i think that is the issue that we are having with the grandfathering issue. i'm not saying that we shouldn't do it i'm just saying that is the history that you wanted to know about and that is if you filed a c u application and a process waiting to happen. and they occupied the space and they need to be told that they have a c u and now they are trying to get it a at a later date and so if we don't want to be concerned with rewarding people for bad behavior because there is no reason to follow the rules if you done. >> well i'm not in support of this. as was pointed out, the academy of art university did do a master plan and instituted this as one of their properties, and they are not sure about the zoning as a lot of people are

not entirely sure, but, i think that as it has been mentioned; just allowing this as a possible exception, to be grandfathered in does not mean they are not going to be permitted, they cannot go forward with the c u because they have to the finished the environmental piece yet because they don't have the same locketsy that the builder at 601 (er aian did because he is doing his environmental and so it's kind off prejudging a situation and i think an educational use is not the worse thing particularly in a new building. >> commissioner more. mr. at a time could you perhaps explain to this commission why the institutional use for this commission is incompatible and you rezones

rezoned for sally which does not allow it. >> so your question is why it was proposed to be a conditional use and now it's not proposed at all? right. >> and i don't know the exact conditioning and i can ask mr. meek coand a lot of those discussions were taking place before i came on on a more active role in this process and so i don't have the answer for why that specific use was changed between the s o i and sally. are you asking mr. meek coto clarify that on the spot this is not about singling out a property but about land use. >> the sally is uniquely different from all of the zoning districts in western sonoma and

its gradually shrining as the district is closing in on the boundaries but the response is to the planning departments guidance during the eastern neighborhoods process and it says that's city needs to provide example amount of space for service and light industrial uses. and the eastern neighborhoods didn't have adequate space and so they put the burden onto western sonoma and so given the limited amount of space that we have, we took s l i area where there is currently no housing accept for 100% affordable and where the intent of the board of supervisors was to limit the use and set aside it to be a loan area where the city would still provide support for service, slight industrial and pd r uses.

are you satisfied with that. >> i'm satisfied with that, yes. >> commissioner hillis. yeah just that i don't know how i would vote on this or on the c u for this i think it's awkward that we are short circuiting a c u that is in place. >> commissioners there is a motion on the floor that has been seconded to endorse the 3b option on 11th street and grandfathering 34,011th street only. >> commissioner antonini. no. >> hillis yes. >> commissioner sugayaa eye, commissioner fong no. >> that move passes for to three with commissioners antonini, hillis and fong voting

against. so i'm want to go make a motion for 113. commissioner sugayaa. >> yeah, i would like to include some language that -- but i do not want to support the language that says we support continued evaluation and the one that is supported by staff and i'm perfectally willing to acknowledge that the process is under way and that we recognize that this process is under way. second. >> commissioner antonini. i would prefer staff language and i think if i'm not missustain, it was objective

one 1.5 is that correct? language that makes it quite clear that there is a process already gone gun and that is one that we should be focusing on and while we are improving the shrinkage or down zoning of that area in this plan that we have our eyes forward to that and it doesn't say it's a preferred option and it does talk about it being out there in the future and so i would not be supportive of this particular one, i prefer the other. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah, i prefer the objective one 1.5 and i don't think it talks about advocating for certain results for had a study and that is why we are studying the central corridor area because it's a rich transit area and we are look to go

intense 90 use and is this is not something that we have endorsed the planning department and so yeah, i would support the language department. this commissioner has to the supported the plan formally. >> exactly this is not the plan this is saying that we are planning. we approve the budget that has the mean to do this planning. and may be i am reading it differently than you are --. >> yes, you are. i do not like the word "appropriate land uses," in 1.5 .1. for example. . >> inappropriately? well it implies that the land eyes implies that the land usings we

are about to approve are inappropriately it's like -- i do not want to get into this but it's kind-of like some questions that were asked to people in the internment campus where if you answered one-way the government seemed fine with it but when you examined what it meant to them personally, it was a different take and when you say appropriate, you are implying that what we just adopted is not appropriate and if that is the case, then just carve out the entire area south of harrison street and put it aside and say that is not part of the plan. and just wait until central quarter comes along and whips everything out that this whole planning process just went through. commissioner moore. >> the central corridor plan hasn't gone through any kind of

rebus discussion and according to prime time time and it's way way behind and while i'm not saying that nothing is constant but change i have to believe that there is not any plan that could never be challenged in the future and i think at this moment this plan deserves the support the planning commission given what it's supporting here and how it's doing that and special use district politics and they will do that and there is always something else people have in the back of their mind at this moment and i think it is what it is and the other plan has just provided enough detail for us for us to provide restrictive or conditional language in into what we are reporting today. >> commission ir? i do not understand the issue but i suggest that you take the language and continue to explore and examine and go

get rid of the language that is not inappropriately and in a way that people find it inappropriately and ultimately this commission will define what is appropriate and i don't have a issue with it because that is our job and anyway we can take out the word "appropriate if that is what we feel is buying the policy but we are not looking at the plan today and i don't think that thin is making a changes to the plan other than we are making an overlap. >> commissioner antonini. yeah, i would be type with that because it's more than an amendment because it's a whole different statement and what i'm afraid of is that i want to make it clear that when this plan does come before us that you

did pass this a couple of year ago and you cannot change this and so i want to make it clear that we are looking at some something and we have invested a lot of money this a subway that is a lot of criticism and on the northeastern end we don't want credit sith at the southern end because we don't have the residential or business community there to take advantage of this and i think that is my main concern but i would vote against the current motion and i'll be supportive of one that speaks to policy one point tieive one with the removal of the word "appropriate," or whatever the word was that we were trying to eliminate. admission irsack guya. >> i guess i have the opposite view i would like tope people come ow and say three years from now you did adopt the plan and why are you changing it. commissioner hillis. >> i think taking out things

like intensity of activities in the objective 1.5, i mean could get to some of the points being raised and may be to leaning in one direction but i think may be recognizing the fact that this study is ongoing is important. >> commissioners thanks motion in the second to adopt the central corridor resolution and omitting the staff language and replacing it with simply acknowledging a process is under way. >> on that motion antonini. no. >> borden no. >> hillis no. >> moore, aye, sag guy eye aye, commissioner wua commission irfong. >> no. >> that motion fails admissioner three to four with commissioners antonini, borden and hillis and fong voting against.

>> commissioner apt knee knee. i would like make a motion to support the new language for western sonoma area plan dealing with the central corridor and i think we are leaving out the word "appropriate," let's see oh, yeah, we leave out intensity of activity but, i would still say in recognition of our city nationwide regional gloat-eye like that language because that is what it's about and the rest of it would -- we don't have to repeat it at the end of there but i can repeat the whole thing if it would be better to do it and near the major transit infrastructure and city wide renalle sustainable growth needs and the existing and planned

infrastructure including s fm ta central project station cal train a proved for high speed service and electric fiction and myriad of services and this area is also adjacent to existing housings and visitor areas in south sonoma transit center in mission bay. so, we will continue to explore and it will say policy one .5 one. continue to explore and reexamine land use controls east of sixth street included in any part of further evaluation along the fourth street corridor. second. >> commission irmoore? i'm very concerned that

adding this language about regional grooves is completely under mining the plan's objection for none of the last policies over the last sen-eight or nine years never spoke of accommodating regional growth but now injecting that into this area is unfar to the plan and why somebody later on can convince me that, that would be an objective to the center corridor plan and to be a vague and open means to a very large portion of the sally would be subject to that particular shift in policy and i am unenable to support the language at least to the extent that commissioner antonini read it. i can't do that.

>> commission irborden, we are not we zoning the sally or messengering the sally in this and i guess the east sonoma is part of the east neighborhoods and at the end of the day, they came up with different approaches with dealing with similar issues but i don't think that all planning process have to be in complicate with each other and ultimately, this commission will decide what happens with the central corridor plan and the subject of this hearing isn't even that plan and i don't know enough about that plan to talk about and so i don't know why we want to shuly a really great moment or over this plan over that central shuly study there is no e e i r or there is nothing.

>> there has been a a proposition from the developer. i spoke to the reporter and the word was completely inappropriately use. >> may be there are a lot of development proposals coming to this area and you have to wonder why this plan isn't even adopted or whatever and the reason -- they though that we were starting the er i process and that has happened they put proposals forward and they are putting ideas on the stable and we didn't give ideas to proposal and is shiverly say here's our time line and we ask for their input just like we ask anybody for their input and i asked for an invitation from the reporter

and he chose to use that word. >> commissioners there is an amendment read by commissioner apt knee knee. commissioner antonini, hillis and ... so moved commissioners that motion passes four-to three with commissioners moores sag guya and would voting against. >> commissioner antonini i'm not sure if this is one of the things that we are considering but we should have some sort of a policy at least mentioned in defact toe, office that is weren'tly operatings and we have heard a lot of testimony from a number of stakeholders and property owners in the area that in fact, much of the area that is probably zoned industrial or m one or slight industrial contains a fairly high amount

of office. and i think we consider this legalization because there probably are a lot of businesses there that we need to have some sort of avenue whereby if it's illegal or none conforming under present law and the same under the new zoning there must be some way that they can be considered because they are a viable business and we may not want to grandfather them or legitimatize them but we did have a process available in eastern makes for legitimatization. >> well the difficulty with that is that if there are uses that are there now and they are not legal now, there is no way to really legalize them unless they rezone them in a way that

a.m., lows them use and gives them the opportunity to legalize and so it would not necessarily be an amendment but it would be completely changing the zoning district for the area to change the uses and or to allow that use. the issue of legitimatization is difficult to apply because they would have had to be able to be permitted to begin with and in the case of office in western sonoma, that is basically not been possible for the last 22 years accept for the narrow pro vision of western design professions and the 3,000 square feet or less and so if we did want to craft a elementization program i think it could be tailored to that small sliver of office space that is permitted currently in western sonoma. >> i think that should be at least the case and if it is then we should make sure there is a

way to do it but i don't know if this applies to any businesses but there could be some 22 year ago and there are still some in an office configuration and i don't know if they apply or not but if there were any that were around for a half a century or something or a quarter century then they should have the able to continue too. >> and right and that headache it a little more complicated because a lot of this time it was zoned industrially and permitted and so whether or not they are legal or not there could be a process there, they may have the permits and the approval of the other appropriates permits required to be considered legal already. in terms of how we crafted a legitimatization program i don't know if we can do that well right now because it's very technical and detailed situation when we talk about a small

sliver of office space committed and a larger subset of general office space at a much earlier time and so i don't know how much guidance we would be able to provide on that without getting too complicated. >> well i'm not sure if had should take the form of a motion but i would like to suggest or move that the commission asks staff to you know just be cognizant of existing uses as to their legitimate whether they are legal or not and if they are legal uses, then, you know they would come up with a future plan for a process by which they could be legitimatized and that would only apply to those that are legally allowed or allowed under earlier m one or whatever the industrial zone are still under operation. >> commissioner antonini is still a motion.